(chiming in a bit late.)
I think the issue is providing additional text, which is friendly to reader
comprehension, versus replacing existing text, which contains standardized data.
Two forms. Different intended consumers. Each useful.
Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Ned Freed wrote:
THe obvious rationale is a human factors one: The user doesn't speak the
language the original error text is in.
Right, but in many cases if the user wants help with the error then
they'll have to forward the DSN to a postmaster who does understand it,
and the postmaster will be much happier if they don't have to grep through
gigabytes of logs to find out the real error message because some crapware
deleted or truncated it.